education in emergencies and protracted crises · emergencies and protracted crises have, from...
TRANSCRIPT
#EduSummitOslo 6 -7 JULY2015
EDUCATION FOR DEVELOPMENT
Background paper for the Oslo Summiton Education for Development
Susan Nicolai, Sébastien Hine and Joseph WalesThe Overseas Development Institute
EDUCATION IN EMERGENCIESAND PROTRACTED CRISESTOWARD A STRENGTHENED RESPONSE
1
Acknowledgements This paper was authored by Susan Nicolai, Sébastien Hine and Joseph Wales of the Overseas
Development Institute (ODI). Calculations on numbers of children affected and costing were
contributed, in part, by Chris Hoy also of ODI and by Jane Barry and Mike Osberg of Linksbridge SPC.
Further internal review was provided by Christina Bennett, Marta Foresti, and Kevin Watkins.
Significant input and comment on drafts of the paper was provided by representatives of Canada’s
Department of Foreign Affairs, Trade and Development; European Commission; GBC Education;
Germany’s Federal Ministry of Economic Cooperation and Development; GPE; INEE; IRC; Norway’s
Ministry of Foreign Affairs; NORAD; NRC; Office of the Special Envoy for Global Education; Save the
Children; UK Department for International Development; UNHCR; UNICEF, and A World at School.
Thanks also go to the INEE, who facilitated an online global consultation on the report and its
recommendations, involving more than 150 individuals worldwide. Further in person consultations
were held in Incheon, South Korea as a part of the World Education Forum, and in Geneva, New York
and Washington DC.
The paper was commissioned and funded by the Norwegian Ministry of Foreign Affairs. Its findings
and conclusions, as well as any errors, are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the
positions or policies of either the commissioning body or any of the paper’s contributors.
2
Contents Acknowledgements ................................................................................................................................. 1
Contents .................................................................................................................................................. 2
Abbreviations .......................................................................................................................................... 3
Executive summary ................................................................................................................................. 4
Introduction ............................................................................................................................................ 7
1 The challenge .................................................................................................................................. 7
1.1 What is ‘education in emergencies and protracted crises’? ................................................... 7
1.2 How many children are affected and where?......................................................................... 8
1.3 What is the impact of crises on education? .......................................................................... 10
2 Education response architecture .................................................................................................. 11
2.1 Who provides education response in crises? ....................................................................... 11
2.2 How is education response coordinated? ............................................................................ 12
2.3 How are needs assessed and responses planned? ............................................................... 13
3 Costs and finance .......................................................................................................................... 14
3.1 What are global costs and the finance gap? ......................................................................... 14
3.2 What level of funding is available from current sources? .................................................... 16
4. Ways forward ................................................................................................................................ 17
4.1 How can global action be advanced? .................................................................................... 17
4.2 Can commitment and accountability be strengthened? ....................................................... 18
4.3 What would make architecture more coordinated and efficient? ........................................ 19
4.4 What can be done about funding shortfalls? ........................................................................ 20
Annex 1: Oslo Consolidated Principles for Education in Emergencies and Protracted Crises ................. 22
References ............................................................................................................................................ 24
Figure 1-1 - 65 million children affected, by country (millions) .............................................................. 9
Figure 1-2 – Children affected vs. those out of school in crisis-affected countries .............................. 10
Figure 3-1 - Estimated domestic contribution and remaining financing gap for additional annual
education costs in crisis affected countries (US$ Billion) ..................................................................... 15
Figure 3-2 - Percentage of total humanitarian funds allocated to education (2000-2014).................. 16
Table 1 - Population Estimate Affected Children Aged 3-15 in 35 Crisis-Affected Countries (millions) . 9
Table 2 – Low, medium and high estimates of finance gaps for children affected by crisis aged 3-15 14
Box 1 – Comparing estimates of OOSC affected by crises .................................................................... 10
Box 2 - The impact of recent emergencies and protracted crises ........................................................ 10
Box 3 - Funding gaps for education in the Syrian crisis and Nepal ....................................................... 15
3
Abbreviations CAR The Central African Republic
CERF Central Emergency Response Fund CHF Common Humanitarian Fund ERF Emergency Response Fund CSO Civil Society Organisation
DFID Department for International Development DPRK The Democratic People's Republic of Korea
DRC The Democratic Republic of the Congo EFA GMR Education for All Global Monitoring Report
EMIS Education Management Information System GADRRRES Global Alliance for Disaster Risk Reduction and Resilience in the Education Sector
GAVI Global Alliance for Vaccines and Immunization GBC Global Business Coalition for Education
GCPEA Global Coalition to Protect Education from Attack GPE Global Partnership for Education IASC Inter-Agency Standing Committee
IM Information Management INEE Inter-Agency Network for Education in Emergencies
(I)NGO (International) Non-Governmental Organisation IRC International Rescue Committee
JENA Joint Education Needs Assessment LEG Local Education Group
MDTF Multi-Donor Trust Fund MIC Middle Income Countries NRC Norwegian Refugee Council
OCHA United Nations Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs ODI Overseas Development Institute
OOSC Out-of-school children PCNA Post-Conflict Needs Assessment PDNA Post-Disaster Needs Assessment
RRT Education Cluster Rapid Response Team SRP Strategic Response Plans UIS UNESCO Institute for Statistics
UNESCO The United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization UNGA United Nations General Assembly
UNHCR The Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees UNICEF The United Nations Children's Fund UNISDR United Nations International Strategy for Disaster Reduction UNRWA The United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East
4
Executive summary Some of the most egregious violations of the right to education around the world occur in contexts of
emergency and protracted crises. With tens of millions affected, and nearly one third of those out of
school in crisis affected countries, neglecting the education of these children and youth denies not
only their future, but also the future of societies where they live. Education in emergencies and
protracted crises can provide safe-spaces during crises, and is crucial to the success of other
interventions, such as water and health. Education is vital for both economic growth and peace and
stability of countries. It is often identified as a high priority by affected communities themselves.
This paper, a contribution to the Oslo Summit on Education Development 6-7 July 2015, aims to detail
the challenge and show how, with political commitment and resourcing, much more could be done.
The challenge An estimated 65 million children aged 3-15 are most directly affected by emergencies and protracted
crises around the world, according to an analysis of 35 crisis affected countries. While a number are
out of school, for those in school, many are at risk of education disruption, drop out, and poor quality,
alongside psychosocial and protection concerns. Although costs vary widely, it is estimated that a
further $4.8 billion per year, or $74 per child on average, would begin to close this educational gap.
Analysis further found that:
Approximately 37 million primary and lower secondary age children are out of school in crisis
affected countries, a full 30% of those out of school globally across these age groups.
There are at least 14 million refugee and internally displaced children aged 3-15 in affected
countries; very few go to pre-primary, 1 in 2 to primary and 1 in 4 to lower secondary school.
Girls are disproportionately affected, especially by conflict, with 4 of the 5 countries with the
largest gender gaps in education experiencing war or insurgency.
The 5 countries experiencing the most attacks on education in recent years are all conflict
affected, with 3 of these having over 1 million children out of school;
More than 90% of children with disabilities in developing countries are not attending school,
and one can assume this percentage would grow in crises.
Conflict is a serious concern to education comprising as it does a full half of these contexts, but is not
the only threat; just under a quarter are complex emergencies with multiple causes, nearly a fifth are
natural disasters, and the remainder are public health emergencies. Also, crises occur across a range
of socio-economic contexts, and while 20 of the countries reviewed are classified as lower income,
the remaining 15 are middle income. Currently nearly half of crisis countries are in Africa, with the
second largest concentration in Middle East and North Africa followed by Asia.
Wherever they occur, there are a range of disastrous system-wide and individual impacts that
emergencies and protracted crises have, from destruction of infrastructure, to disruption of systems,
to an increase in protection concerns. Children across age ranges are affected differently, with young
children susceptible to health concerns and developmental delay, and school age and adolescents at
risk of early marriage and pregnancy, recruitment into armed forces or groups, or labour exploitation.
The proposed SDG education goal, along with the Incheon Declaration, sets out a vision for inclusive
and equitable quality education for all. It makes commitments for universal access to pre-primary
education, and universal access to both primary and secondary education. While education responses
to emergencies and protracted crises have often focused mainly on primary school, our analysis thus
assumes response should at a minimum cover pre-primary, primary and lower secondary education.
5
Education response architecture Overall responsibility for education sits with national governments, and for signatories to the 1951
Refugee Convention, this includes in refugee contexts. However, willingness, preparedness and
capacity to fulfil these functions is varied, and mutual accountability by international bodies and civil
society brings in a significant number of other actors, including multilateral agencies like UNICEF and
UNHCR (with special responsibility for refugees), bilateral development partners, as well as INGOs and
community based organisations. Despite the large number of actors, there is limited reach and a
persistent lack of capacity for implementation at country level.
The range of actors has led to significant challenges of co-ordination, with education in emergencies
handled through the IASC Education Cluster, refugee crises by UNHCR, and protracted crises by a mix
including Local Education Groups (LEGs). Alongside and within these bodies, The Global Partnership
for Education (GPE) and Inter-Agency Network for Education in Emergencies (INEE) also play important
roles in linking actors and developing and sharing good practice. Divides between humanitarian and
development spheres has led to limited links across these groups.
In addition to creating links across coordination structures, education response architecture could be
strengthened through beginning to address three key gaps: inadequate capacity for response, lack of
coherence across assessment and planning, and poor data collection and use. Actual implementation
of education in crisis contexts can be constrained by capacity, at times due to capable partners and
other short-term funding arrangements. Coherence across assessments and planning processes is
often an issue. Gaps in data collection and information management systems constrain efforts to
analyse evolving needs and track progress.
Costs and financing The cost to provide educational support to the 65 million children aged 3-15 who are affected by crisis
is estimated to be in the order US$8 billion per year. This is the medium of three estimates of cost
produced for this report and includes $2 billion at pre-primary level, $4 billion at primary and a further
$2 billion for lower secondary. Taking this figure, against analysis of domestic governments likely
contributions, suggest there is a global finance gap of $4.8 billion, which averages to $74 per child.
Existing funding sources are not likely to be sufficient to close this gap. Overall, the strongest
candidate for additional funding appears to be the development sector in terms of its scale and
resources as ODA to education globally reached $12.6 billion in 2012. In the same year, however,
development funding to education in crisis contexts was only US$1.1 billion, supplemented by US$105
million over the same period by humanitarian funding for education. Other sources such as increases
in national budgets, as well as household and remittance contributions, might enhance funding for
crises, but are not likely to be significant in contexts where resources are stretched.
The finance gap for education in emergencies and protracted crises, estimated at US$4.8 billion, is of
a significant order of magnitude. Still, this represents just under 22% of the annual financing gap of
US$22 billion over 2015-2030 for reaching universal pre-primary, primary and lower secondary
education of good quality in low and lower middle income countries. It is feasible to begin to make a
dent in this gap; globally, education ODA would need to rise by just 38%, however, domestic education
budgets are also expected to grow in coming years and it is reasonable that the burden be shared
across actors. To put this in perspective, for the education sector, in 2014, GPE received commitments
from partners totalling $28.5 billion for 2015-18, with donors pledging $2.1 billion. This compares to
pledges of $12 billion to the Global Fund to Fight AIDS, Tuberculosis and Malaria for 2014-16, and $7.5
billion pledged on top of $2 billion committed to GAVI, the global vaccine alliance, for 2016-2020.
6
Ways forward To make a significant change in this situations, further action requires high level commitment and
advocacy, as well as funding. To strengthen global commitment, develop a detailed plan, and raise
the necessary resources, a group of high level political actors and institutional leaders should serve as
champions for this education in crises, working together initially for a minimum of one year to lead
this process and advocate with heads of state, heads of existing institutions, and potential donors.
While a number of global commitments have been made to ensure education for children in
emergencies and protracted crises, there is limited implementation of these agreements. To address
this, there is need for a simplified and consolidated set of principles to cut through the complexity that
has grown up around delivering education in crises. States are therefore called upon to reaffirm and
implement globally agreed principles for education in emergencies and protracted crises, consolidated
here as the Oslo Principles for Education in Emergencies and Protracted Crises (see Annex 1).
In addition, there is a call for technical scoping and subsequent launch of a Common Platform for
Education in Emergencies and Protracted Crises. This platform could be shaped in a number of ways,
including a combination of options provided in this paper. On the more intensive end, it might involve
the creation of a new institution, both providing technical assistance on architectural issues and
housing a global fund. Alternatively, this could be part of an existing initiative, including a window of
an existing fund. A less demanding option might be a formalised initiative bringing government,
humanitarian and development actors together for country level coordination, developing an agreed
medium to long-term plan and crowding in existing funding.
To take this work forward, four recommendations are made:
Recommendation 1: A ‘Champions Group’ of high level actors, including representatives of donor countries and crisis-affected states, is formed to advance global action on education in emergencies and protracted crises.
Recommendation 2: Consolidated Principles for Education in Emergencies and Protracted Crises, reaffirming agreed commitments, are established and implemented.
Recommendation 3: A Common Platform for Education in Emergencies and Protracted Crises is further scoped and set up to address humanitarian and development architectural issues and ensure more seamless transition of support during and after crises.
Recommendation 4: Urgent attention is given to addressing the finance gap for education in crises, starting with an assessment of options followed by creation of a dedicated fund or new modalities.
7
Introduction This paper on education in emergencies and protracted crises is a background paper for the Oslo
Summit on Education Development held 6-7 July 2015. The summit aims at mobilizing a strong and
renewed political commitment for global education, focusing on four areas: investments in education,
girls’ education, education in emergencies, and quality of learning.
Education is a fundamental right of all people. It is the most effective way of reducing poverty and
inequality and is integral to people fulfilling their life goals (High Level Panel, 2013). However, 25 years
after the adoption of the World Declaration on Education for All and 15 years following the Dakar
Framework for Action, more than 58 million children remain out of primary school and a further 63
million out of lower secondary school (UIS, 2015). Moreover, a worrying number of children in schools
across the developing world are not learning to an adequate standard (EFA GMR, 2014).
Some of the most egregious violations in regards to the right to education occur in contexts of
emergency and protracted crises. As highlighted by the Special Rapporteur for Education, “Education,
a basic human right, is frequently found to be interrupted, delayed or even denied during the
reconstruction process and early response to emergencies” (Muñoz, 2008).
This paper outlines the challenge of education in emergencies and protracted crises, exploring three
main questions: how the issue is defined, how many are affected and where, and what is the impact
of crises on education. It then goes on to explore the response architecture, looking at who provides
education, how it is coordinated, how it is assessed and planned, and related costs and financing.
Finally, the paper identifies key gaps and sets out recommended actions to address these.
1 The challenge
1.1 What is ‘education in emergencies and protracted crises’? There is a relatively broad scope and understanding of what constitutes ‘education in emergencies’,1
with the term often used as a catch-all, but other expressions might be used to shift emphasis, such
as education in humanitarian response, protracted crises (DFID, 2015), or fragile contexts (GPE,
2015a). Here we use the term ‘education in emergencies and protracted crises’, shortened at times
to ‘education in crises’, to stress both the immediate and on-going nature of the challenge.
The 2010 UNGA resolution on The Right to Education in Emergency Situations reaffirms the right to
education for all those affected by humanitarian crises recalling the right as declared in numerous
declarations and conventions (see Annex 1 for detail). It also urges donors to increase financing to
education in crises and to implement the INEE Minimum Standards for Education (2010) which are
officially recognized as the education companion guide to the Sphere Standards (2011).
Education in emergencies and protracted crises is important for a variety of reasons. By providing safe-
spaces during crises, education is life-saving and provides vital psychosocial support, which is key to
the longer-term development of children, youth and communities. It is also crucial to the success of
interventions in other sectors, such as water and health. Education is vital for peace and stability of
countries (INEE, 2010) and is often identified as a high priority sector by affected communities
themselves (Save the Children and NRC, 2014).
1 The INEE states that education in emergencies encompasses “quality learning opportunities for all ages in situations of crisis, including early childhood development, primary, secondary, non-formal, technical, vocational, higher and adult education… and provides physical, psychosocial and cognitive protection that can sustain and save lives” (INEE, 2010).
8
Education response is affected by the type of crisis, its scale, and phase, amongst other factors. While
not fitting neatly into a pre-defined taxonomy, there are three broad typologies of crises: conflict (e.g.
war, insurgency), natural disasters (e.g. earthquakes, tsunamis, floods, droughts) and epidemics (e.g.
Ebola, HIV), with complex emergencies involving a combination of said events (IFRC, 2015). Further,
fragility is often an underlying factor of weak education systems, particularly in complex and
protracted crises (Shields & Paulson, 2015).
In addition, displacement within and across borders is a complicating issue for education. In this past
year, the level of forced displacement is higher than ever before. There were near 60 million people
exiled from their homes at the end of 2014 – a record number – with most of the situations lasting for
more than 20 years (UNHCR, 2015). The four-year war in Syria is the single largest driver of this
displacement, with 2.6 million children out of school in Syria and in the neighbouring countries of
Turkey, Lebanon, Jordan, Iraq and Egypt (UNHCR, 2015; Jalbout, 2015).
The proposed SDG education goal, along with the Incheon Declaration, sets out a vision for inclusive
and equitable quality education for all. It makes commitments for universal access to pre-primary
education, and universal access to both primary and secondary education. While education responses
to emergencies and protracted crises have often focused mainly on primary school, our analysis thus
assumes response should at a minimum cover pre-primary, primary and lower secondary education.2
Recognising the broad scope and complexity of this challenge is integral to moving the sector forward.3
Education needs are significant across different dimensions – typology, scale and timeframe of a crisis
– meaning the system and its resources must be flexible enough to respond to the shifting needs
across a variety of emergencies and protracted crises.
1.2 How many children are affected and where? A total of 35 countries of concern to the international community are currently affected by
emergencies and protracted crises, based on analysis of the countries included in the United Nations
Children's Fund (UNICEF) Humanitarian Action for Children appeals for 2015.4 While crises are
dynamic, and those affected may change year on year, analysis of the most recent data shows that:
An estimated 65 million children aged 3-15 are most directly affected by emergencies and
protracted crises around the world, thus being at risk of education disruption, displacement,
drop out, and poor quality, alongside other psychosocial and protection concerns;56
2 While going beyond primary education, even this is a relatively narrow conceptualisation of needed response, as we have not explored numbers or costs for upper secondary, technical or vocational, tertiary or non-formal education, or specific numbers and costs for special programmes such as catch-up or accelerated learning. 3 Further defining this issue is partly dependent on the perspective and priorities of different actors. The reality is there is a complex matrix of issues looking across phases and other elements, and the scope within which individual organisations operate is almost always narrower than the scope of needs across the entire sector. 4 A number of lists detailing emergencies and protracted crises were reviewed. In addition to the UNICEF HAC 2015 list, a close look was taken at the list of conflict-affected by the EFA GMR 2015, the list included in the ACAPS Global Emergency Overview, and the most recent list of OCHA appeals. Each of these have their own logic and accompanying anomalies. The UNICEF list of 35 countries (34 plus Nepal due to the recent earthquake and subsequent appeal) was determined as best for our analysis as it includes different types of crises, comprises all countries with inter-agency appeals plus some others, and cites data in relation to affected populations. There are, however, some countries that might be considered ‘in crisis’ (i.e. Bangladesh, Libya, Pakistan) which are not on this list, which may cause some of our global figures to be underestimates. 5 There are also approximately 15 million crisis-affected youth aged 16-18 years in these countries. 6 Overall population of children 3-15 living in these countries is 403 million.
9
Approximately 37 million primary and lower secondary age children are out of school in crisis
affected countries7, although it is unclear the extent this number is directly affected by crisis
versus by broader system fragility (see figure 2-2);
There are at least 14 million refugee and internally displaced children aged 3-15 in these
affected countries, based on UNHCR and UNRWA total populations of concern; at the primary
level only 1 in 2 go to school and only 1 in 4 is at lower secondary level (UNESCO, 2015b).8
Table 1 - Population Estimate Affected Children Aged 3-15 in 35 Crisis-Affected Countries (millions)
Pre-primary Primary Lower secondary
Total number of children 73 293 110
Children affected by crises 10 40 15
Out-of-school children - 22 15
Refugees and displaced 2 8 3
Source: (Linksbridge, 2015)
Conflict is a serious concern to education comprising as it does a full half of these contexts, but is not
the only threat; just under a quarter are complex emergencies with multiple causes, nearly a fifth are
natural disasters, and the remainder are public health emergencies. 9 Also, crises occur across a range
of socio-economic contexts, and while 20 countries are classified as lower income, the remaining 15
are middle income. Currently nearly half of crisis countries are in Africa, with the second largest
concentration in Middle East and North Africa followed by Asia.10 Five countries – Nigeria, Guinea,
Yemen, the DPRK, and Syria – have over 4 million school age children affected (Figure 1-1 below).
Figure 1-1 - 65 million children affected, by country (millions)
Source: (Linksbridge, 2015)
7 This includes 22 million primary aged and 15 lower secondary aged who are out of school. To calculate this,
country-wide out of school numbers were sourced from World DataBank (source UIS). For three countries – DRC, Ethiopia and Nigeria – only crisis-affected areas were included rather than the whole. When data on the number of out-of-school children was not available, a figure was estimated by applying the average percentage of out-of-school children in crisis affected states to the school age population. 8 Globally, beyond the 35 affected countries analysed for this paper, there were 12 million children aged 5-11
and 8 million aged 12-17 amongst UNHCR populations of concern at the end of 2014 (UNHCR, 2015). 9 Just under 50% of these humanitarian crises are related to conflict, 17% are natural disaster, 9% are public health emergencies, and a further 23% are experiencing complex emergencies with multiple causes. 10 Also, a total of 65% of the affected school age population is in Africa, 19% in the Middle East and North Africa,
12% in Asia, 3% in Latin America and the Caribbean, and 1% Central and Eastern Europe.
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
Nig
eria
Gu
ine
a
Sud
an
Cam
ero
on
Sou
th S
ud
an
Sier
ra L
eon
e
DR
C
Nig
er
CA
R
Som
alia
Lib
eri
a
Ch
ad
Mal
i
Egyp
t
Eth
iop
ia
Ken
ya
Uga
nd
a
Erit
rea
Mal
awi
Djib
ou
ti
Yem
en
DP
RK
Syri
a
Afg
han
ista
n
Iraq
Ph
ilip
pin
es
Nep
al
Ukr
ain
e
WB
& G
aza
Turk
ey
Mya
nm
ar
Jord
an
Leb
ano
n
Hai
ti
Co
lom
bia
Africa Asia LatinAm.
10
While it is estimated that 55 million of primary and lower secondary
school age are affected by crises (less 10 million of pre-primary age),
because of poor data it is unclear how many of those are out of school
children (OOSC). Yet 37 million of those out-of-school around the
world live in crisis affected countries. It is unclear how much overlap
there is between the 55 million aged 5-15 affected by crises and the
37 million out-of-school in these same countries, although one could
assume there will be some (see Figure 1-2).
Box 1 – Comparing estimates of OOSC affected by crises
A major challenge in putting together numbers affected is data availability and timeliness. All of these figures, including our own, are likely under-estimates as they rely on enrolment data rather than attendance or completion and do not consider the quality of education. Education management information systems (EMIS) are slow to respond to humanitarian situations and can be compromised themselves in large scale emergencies, whereas humanitarian information management systems tend to be under-resourced and incomplete.
1.3 What is the impact of crises on education? There are a range of disastrous individual and system-wide impacts that crises can have, from destruction of infrastructure, to disruption of systems, to an increase in protection concerns. Box 2 - The impact of recent emergencies and protracted crises
On the 25th of April 2015 Nepal was struck by an earthquake registering 7.8 on the Richter scale followed by severe aftershocks. More than 36,000 classrooms were destroyed and an additional 17,000 classrooms damaged, disrupting education of more than 1 million children (UNICEF, 2015).
In 2014/15 Ebola wreaked havoc on the education systems in Guinea, Sierra Leone and Liberia. This impacted 8.5 million children and young people under 20, 2.5 million of which are under 5. Schools in the three countries remained closed for over 7 months. Primary school attendance was already low before the crisis (Guinea – 58%, Sierra Leone – 74%, and Liberia – 34%) (INEE, 2015a).
In South Sudan the ongoing conflict is causing massive disruption to an education system that previously only had attendance of 43% for children and adolescents. At least 1,188 schools are in the affected region with 95 occupied by military forces or displaced people. Since December 2013 over 9,000 children are known to have been recruited into armed forces (INEE, 2015b).
Children across age ranges are also affected differently, with young children susceptible to health
concerns and developmental delay, and school age and adolescents at risk of early marriage and
pregnancy, recruitment into armed forces or groups, or labour exploitation. Yet education
responses in humanitarian situations focus predominantly on primary school, with little attention
given to either pre-primary or those in secondary or tertiary education.
The way that the impact of emergencies and protracted crises on education has so far by measured
globally is through out of school figures. These numbers, however, do not show the full impact of
crises, which may have as or more significant affects for those in school. Analysis for this paper
has found that there are 22 million primary aged and 15 million lower secondary aged OOSC in
crisis affected countries, a total of 30% of those out of school across these age groups (38%
primary, 23% lower secondary). This compares to other conflict-focused estimates, including the
latest EFA GMR estimate of 21 million primary aged OOSC in conflict-affected countries in 2012,
accounting for 36% of the total (UNESCO, 2015) and the narrower estimate by Jones and Naylor
that 14 million OOSC aged 7-14 lived in conflict-affected regions in 2012 (Jones & Naylor, 2014).
Figure 1-2 – Children affected vs. those out of school in crisis-affected countries
11
Education of already vulnerable or marginalised groups almost always suffer more in emergencies.
Girls (Jones & Naylor, 2014) and the poor (UNESCO Institute for Statistics, 2010) are especially
affected. Four of the five counties identified as having the largest gender gaps in education are in the
list of 35 crisis-affected countries – the Central African Republic (CAR), Chad, Yemen, and South Sudan
(King & Winthrop, 2015). Further, more than 90% of children with disabilities in developing countries
are not attending school and one can assume this is exacerbated in crises (UNESCO, 2007).
Direct attacks on education and broader protection issues are also of concern in areas affected by
conflict. The report Education Under Attack 2014 by the Global Coalition to Protect Education from
Attack (GCPEA) highlights that between 2009 and 2012 there were attacks on education in over 70
countries, and out of the five most heavily affected – Colombia, Sudan, Somalia, Syria, Afghanistan –
at least 3 have over 1 million children out of school (GCPEA, 2014).
2 Education response architecture
2.1 Who provides education response in crises? Overall responsibility for education sits with national governments, as reaffirmed by the UN General
Assembly (UNGA) resolution A/64/L.58 on ‘The right to education in emergency situations’ (2010).
States are thus the main actors in ensuring that education systems are prepared for and resilient to
potential crises, and in co-ordinating response. However, the extent to which states prioritise and are
able to perform these functions in practice varies widely, with a mutual accountability by international
bodies and civil society to meet needs. As a whole, the lack of partners with adequate capacity for
response across all levels remains a challenge in crisis contexts.
National governments
An analysis of 75 current national education plans found that 67% mentioned neither conflict nor
natural disasters and that many lack detailed plans for preparing and responding to them (Winthrop
and Matsui, 2013:37-38). Some countries have made significant progress in terms of resilience
planning, such as Ethiopia, and 26 countries have signed up to the Comprehensive School Safety
Framework (UNISDR and GADRRRES, 2014). Countries such as the Philippines and Pakistan have also
set up emergency units addressing education, either in disaster management agencies or their
Ministry of Education, in order to better coordinate the national and international response to crises.
Under the 1951 UN Convention relating to the Status of Refugees, national governments who are
signatories have responsibility for the protection and care of refugees and stateless persons on their
territory, which also includes the right to education, and a duty to co-operate with the UNHCR. The
extent to which these duties are fulfilled for education varies, however, with only 16 (64%) of 25
UNHCR priority countries officially allowing refugee learners full access to national education systems
at the primary and secondary level, and others placing limits on access.
International bodies and civil society
A range of multilateral agencies support education in crises by providing additional resources,
expertise and capacity to augment state-led efforts. The United Nations Children’s Fund (UNICEF)
plays a particularly significant role, responding to as many as 200 emergencies every year. The UN
Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organisation (UNESCO), the World Bank, and the European Union
also make important contributions. The UN High Commission for Refugees (UNHCR) leads
international efforts to safeguard the rights and well-being of refugees, including the right to
education, and leads coordination in refugee responses. The United Nations Relief and Works Agency
for Palestine Refugees (UNRWA) has a similar mandate for those displaced by the 1948 Arab-Israeli
conflict and their descendants. These actors each vary in focus and capacity on this issue.
12
In terms of bilateral development agencies, there are likewise varying levels of focus on and support
to education in crises. Recent analysis shows that education in emergencies and protracted crises is
“covered briefly in 5 donors’ overarching foreign assistance strategies, somewhat more specifically in
5 donors’ humanitarian strategies/policies, and more specifically in 6 donors’ education sector
strategies/policies” with a further 3 donors having detailed white papers or working papers outlining
their approach (NRC and Save the Children, 2015).
International NGOs (INGOs) also play a key role in provision and advocacy of education in crises.
Particularly prominent INGOs include Save the Children, the International Rescue Committee, Plan
International, and the Norwegian Refugee Council (NRC). Further, national and sub-national NGOs
are an important part of education response in certain crises, with the INEE membership including at
least 125 uniquely named national NGO organisations and community organisations.
2.2 How is education response coordinated? The myriad of actors operating at various levels has created a clear need for coordination. The most
significant forums for country level education coordination are highlighted – the IASC Education
Cluster, UNHCR refugee coordination, and the LEGs. In addition, the GPE and INEE bring actors
together globally around these issues, working at country level within and alongside these groups.
Education coordination mechanisms The IASC, led by the Emergency Relief Coordinator – also the head of the UN Office for the
Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs (OCHA)11 – is a coordination, decision-making and policy
development body comprised of prominent UN agencies and NGOs engaged in humanitarian work.
The IASC Education Cluster operates at the global level and is activated in the field in response to
particular emergencies. The Global Education Cluster is co-led by UNICEF and Save the Children, with
21 organisational members.12 Country level clusters are activated and de-activated based on need
and the stage of emergency through a formal call by the UN Humanitarian Coordinator and upon
request by hosting countries.13 Education Clusters help to coordinate country level SRPs, which
include appeals, but do not distribute funding.
The mandate of UNHCR for refugees (and UNRWA in the case of Palestinian refugees) is global,
regardless of location (camp/urban) or in terms of emergency, non-emergency and mixed movements
involving asylum-seeker and refugees. In refugee situations, the High Commissioner for Refugees has
the mandate for the “effective coordination of measures taken to deal with [refugee contexts]”, with
UNHCR therefore the lead on the coordination of education for refugees in crisis contexts, as opposed
to the cluster approach (UNHCR, 2013).
In longer term development situations, LEGs bring together national education authorities with
representatives of a range of national education actors, including other government departments,
donors, INGOs, CSOs, teachers unions, universities and private providers. They are chaired or co-
chaired by the Ministry of Education and agree common priorities and plans for the education sector.
11 OCHA performs a wide range of roles in the humanitarian sphere, including co-ordination, advocacy, policy
development, information management and co-ordinating humanitarian financing. This last role includes both the mobilisation and management of pooled funds for humanitarian crises, and the tracking and publishing of humanitarian expenditures through the Financial Tracking Service (FTS) database. 12 The Education Cluster Unit based in Geneva serves as its secretariat, providing guidance to country education clusters and managing the deployments of a Rapid Response Team (RRT). 13 There are currently 23 active education clusters, with a further 6 having become dormant over 2006-2015, and less formal working groups operating in a further 24 countries over the same period.
13
The creation of LEGs and education sector plans is a pre-requisite to receiving funding from the Global
Partnership for Education (GPE), including in situations of crisis and fragility, as its funding will depend
on the financing gaps identified in the course of education strategy development (GPE, 2012).
International partnerships and networks
The GPE was established in 2002.14 Not strictly a humanitarian actor, it is present in a number of
fragile states and active in protracted crises. GPE pools funds from bilateral donors and developing
country governments, as well as civil society and private sector actors, making grants to countries to
support and improve education, which have totalled US$4.3bn over 60 countries since 2002. While
GPE primarily works with national governments, several INGO partners can now act as managing
entities and disperse funds in contexts where government capacity is weak. At the country level GPE
works closely with the LEGs, assisting them in developing sector plans and in convening actors.
Finally, the INEE was formed in 2000, a global network to facilitate collaboration; develop standards
and guidance; and share information on the sector. In 2004 the INEE produced the Minimum
Standards for Education: Preparedness, Response, Recovery (INEE, 2010), setting out a framework
under which work in education in emergencies should be carried out.
2.3 How are needs assessed and responses planned? A range of needs assessment and response planning processes take place in relation to emergencies
and protracted crises, which, despite being conducted jointly, at times are disconnected and
duplicative. The lack of consistency and objectivity in needs assessments also creates problems
regarding the prioritisation for funding and programming. Similar difficulties are also found for long
term and transition planning mechanisms.
Providing for the education needs of populations in crisis contexts requires, as a first step, an accurate
and credible assessment of needs, followed by the development of response plans. Needs assessment
for an acute crisis is typically provided initially through joint education needs assessments (JENA),
facilitated by the cluster or education working group, which aims to understand the impact of a given
crisis; identify locations and populations that are severely affected; assess capacity of the education
system; and, on the basis of these, identify education priorities requiring external assistance. Broader
needs assessments may also be carried out using Post-Disaster Needs Assessments (PDNAs), which
are government led, and Post-Conflict Needs Assessments (PCNAs), which are multi-lateral exercises.
Their role is to provide an entry point for negotiating and financing common strategies for recovery
and development, incorporating needs assessments, national priorities and costing of needs in a
transitional results framework. Greater coherence could be developed between these and other
needs assessment processes, including those used to inform education sector plans.
In terms of planning, Strategic Response Plans (SRPs), formerly known as consolidated appeals, are
used to coordinate responses to humanitarian crises whenever an inter-agency appeal is in place. They
are prepared by humanitarian country teams based on an overview of humanitarian needs (with the
exception of refugee responses). They are used for resource mobilisation by agency and NGO
directors, managers and cluster coordinators. Cluster plans, including those of the education cluster,
operate within the framework of the SRP and consist of detailed objectives, activities and
accompanying projects for implementation, including planned outputs, targets and costings. OCHA
guidance (OCHA, 2014a) notes that the SRPs should be constructed in such a way as to be coherent
with other national frameworks, as well as agreed recovery and transition plans.
14 Initially as the Education for All Fast Track Initiative (FTI).
14
Long term education planning by both national governments and Local Education Groups (LEGs) may
also deal with emergencies and protracted crises. The former may be particularly key in terms of
resilience planning for crises, although as noted in earlier sections prioritisation of crisis planning is
often limited. The latter are chaired or co-chaired by the national Ministry of Education and agree
common priorities and plans for the education sector across a wide range of education actors, which
are then used to identify financing gaps for international actors. These plans provide key information
on national education needs and priorities, which can then act as a guide for external funding and
intervention, as well as baseline data for planning of crisis interventions (GPE, 2012).
Despite the existence of a range of frameworks for needs assessments and plans, many have issues
with absence of data, weak technical and monitoring capacity, and unclear division of labour between
actors. The need for simplification and adaptation to context, as well as capacity-building, has been
highlighted as key to ensure these tools are being used well.
3 Costs and finance
3.1 What are global costs and the finance gap? An estimated US$8 billion per year is needed to provide educational support to the 65 million children
aged 3-15 who are affected by crisis. This is the medium of three estimates of cost produced for this
report and is comprised of $2 billion at pre-primary level, $4 billion at primary level and a further $2
billion for lower secondary; averaging as a cost of $123 per child.1516
As a portion of this, analysis of the likely contribution of domestic governments suggests there is a
global finance gap of $4.8 billion, or $74 per child (see Table 2). This represents just under 22% of the
annual $22 billion global funding gap for pre-primary, primary and lower-secondary education.
Table 2 – Low, medium and high estimates of finance gaps for children affected by crisis aged 3-15
Estimated cost of supporting
education in crisis-affected
countries (US$ Billions)
Estimated contribution of
domestic spending
(US$ Billions)
Education in crises funding gap estimate (US$ Billions)
Education in crises funding gap as a % of annual global funding gap
($22bn)
Low estimate 4 1.6 2.4 10.8
Medium estimate 8 3.2 4.8 21.6
High estimate 12 4.7 7.3 32.4
Source: (EFA GMR, 2015), (Linksbridge, 2015), (Steer, 2015) and author’s calculations
15 All cost estimates should be taken with a note of caution, as they rely on a simplified model of education response which would vary widely in reality. Cost estimates were calculated based on a provision of a standardised package which included classroom construction/repair, teacher salary/stipend, teacher training and student learning materials, and it is recognised that the response needs would likely extend beyond this. Costs were estimated separately by region (Africa, Asia and Latin America) and calculated at both a high and low level, resulting in a medium level estimate highlighted in this report. 16 These estimates assume that all of those aged 3-4 years would be new entrants to early childhood education (as very few crisis affected countries have extensive pre-primary enrolment), and that all those aged 5-15 years will be enrolled in school and may need supplementary support to avoid or limit disruption (as it is very difficult to say what proportion of children affected are out-of-school longer-term).
15
The range of financing gap estimates of US$2.4-7.3 billion have been developed using a combination
of data from background papers for the Education for All Global Monitoring Report (EFA GMR)
(2015) and Steer (2015).17 The absolute size of the finance gap for crisis contexts is relatively small
compared to the global growth in education spending, but, as can be seen in Figure 3-1, it represents
a larger relative gap for these countries. Moreover, as with many of the figures in this report, these
are also likely to be underestimates, as they do not factor in the problems governments in these
contexts may face in terms of prioritising education and allocating funds effectively.
Although figures for adequately
providing education in all crises
contexts is high, the cost of not
doing so is far higher. Education
in crises at times can be life-
saving, is certainly life
sustaining, and is clearly
important as a critical long-
term investment as both a
private and public good,
including for a nation’s long
term human capital and
economic growth.
Source: (EFA GMR, 2015), (Linksbridge, 2015), (Steer, 2015) and author’s calculations
Box 3 - Funding gaps for education in the Syrian crisis and Nepal
Current funding for education in crises has severe failings and challenges that are evident in a number of recent major crises. Four years after the start of the Syrian crisis donors have failed to act on commitments to ensure that there is ‘No Lost Generation’ of refugees. The UN’s inter-agency, regional education response is US$235m short of the funding it requested for 2014, jeopardising education prospects for up to a quarter of a million children. The low priority given to education by humanitarian actors is also evident in the case of the Nepal earthquakes. Initially, education in Nepal was not a designated “emergency cluster” and as such the sector did not receive funding from the country level emergency pooled fund. One month after the earthquake, the education portion of the flash appeal of $24.1 million was funded at only 1.3%.
Sources: DFID (2015), INEE (2014), Watkins and Zyck (2014)
17 The EFA GMR makes a series of assumptions regarding the cost trajectories of education provision needed to
meet international education goals, as well as increasing domestic capacity for revenue raising and a rising percentage of domestic funds being channelled into education over 2015-2030 (EFA GMR 2015b). These estimates use the resulting share of additional annual costs of education provision covered by domestic education spending for low income countries (around 41% additional costs - US$26bn per year with $15.4bn coming from domestic spending) with some modifications to reflect our assumption that fragile states will have lower capacity for revenue raising than non-fragile states, with 2010 tax to GDP ratios roughly 1/3 lower in fragile states across LIC and MIC contexts (Steer, 2015). Based on this we took the LIC ratio and then lowered the assumed contribution of domestic revenue to education spending by 1/3. This produced the revised financing gap of roughly 61% for education in crisis spending applied to the three costing scenarios above.
1.63.2
4.72.4
4.8
7.3
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
Low Medium High
Estimated Domestic Contribution Aid Finance Gap
Figure 3-1 - Estimated domestic contribution and remaining financing gap for additional annual education costs in crisis affected countries (US$ Billion)
16
3.2 What level of funding is available from current sources? Funding for education in crisis contexts comes from four main sources – domestic public spending;
humanitarian aid; development aid; and private household expenditure. These and other sources will
need to be better tapped to close the finance gap above.
The first source, public expenditure on education, is difficult to estimate for education in crisis
contexts due to limited data.18 Overall education spending has risen over the last fifteen years in many
developing countries – rising by 1 percentage point or more of national income in 38 countries over
1999-2012 (UNESCO, 2015).19 However, education as a share of government expenditure has actually
fallen in fragile states over 2002-2013, from 14.5% to 13.4% in fragile least developed countries and
16.2% to 15.2% in fragile middle income countries (MIC). This has led to a share that is considerably
lower than that observed in non-fragile states, where education spending has grown by this measure
over the same period (Steer, 2015).
Humanitarian aid is another key source, but the prioritisation of education within this sector is still
limited and there is a shortfall in overall humanitarian funding. Appeals are consistently not achieving
their targets, with donors typically only able to contribute 50-60% of requirements each year (Bennett,
2015). In the case of education appeals, this has averaged at around 38% (NRC and Save the Children,
2015). Of the US$12.9bn requested by humanitarian appeals in 2013, only 3.19% was intended for
use in the education sector, and the share of education in actual funds received was even lower at
1.95%. This is well below the target of 4% earmarked humanitarian funds for education called for by
the UN Secretary-General’s Education First Initiative in 2012 (UN, 2012).20 Even had the 4% target
been met, humanitarian funding for education would have fallen well short of the $4.8bn financing
gap identified here, raising just $0.5bn, although this would have been an improvement on the $0.4bn
appealed for and the $0.25bn that was actually received by education appeals in 2013.
Figure 3-2 - Percentage of total humanitarian funds allocated to education (2000-2014)
Source - OCHA Financial Tracking Services [Accessed 24th April 2015]
18 Nicolai and Hine (2015: 34) note that “While domestic expenditure is the single largest source of funding on education across all types of countries, no research was found that clearly analyses this before, during and after emergencies…It may be that certain governments have set aside budgets to support education in emergencies, but this is not documented or explored in any depth in any cases.” 19 Although domestic resources are increasingly important to overall financing, it is not a high priority in many national budgets – remaining largely unchanged over 1999-2012 at around 13.7% of government expenditure 20 Several actors consulted for this paper highlighted a need to revisit the 4% target for education spending from humanitarian funding. This is due both to the likely disconnect between the actual number of out-of-school children in a given country and those that are targeted by UN CAP appeals, and the fact that, as demonstrated here, under-funding of crisis responses means that even if the 4% target were met it would not be sufficient.
1.1% 1.1%
2.8%
1.7% 1.6%
4.7%
1.6%1.9%
3.2%
2.2%
3.4%
2.4%
1.4%2.0%
1.7%
0%
1%
2%
3%
4%
5%
2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014
% of humanitrian funding which goes to education 4% target
17
The vast majority of international funding for education in crisis, with the exception of refugee crises,
comes from development aid. In 2012, humanitarian funding for education in conflict-affected
countries was US$105m, while development funding in these contexts was US$1.1bn over the same
period. Development aid is delivered in a variety of forms, including programme-based/project-based
approaches; pooled funds; and budget support. Project based approaches tend to be favoured as less
risky in fragile contexts, but there is an increasing emphasis on pooled funds and MDTF that allow
greater coordination and long-term planning.
Evidence on household expenditure on education in crisis contexts is limited. UNESCO analysis of
household survey data covering 15 African countries in fragile and non-fragile contexts found the
average sampled household spent 4.2% of total household expenditure on education, with
considerable variation within the sample and the fragile states sub-sample from 0.9% in Chad to 6.1%
in Côte d’Ivoire (UNESCO-BREDA, 2012). Remittances to crisis contexts can generate significant flows
and so may be a potential – but likely limited – source of additional finance for education. Likewise,
there is limited information about private provision of education in crises, as well as foundation and
private sector contributions to education in these contexts, with the latter especially having scope for
further development.
Existing funding sources are not likely to be sufficient to close the identified funding gap for education
in crisis contexts. Humanitarian resources are currently stretched, and this source of finance it is
unlikely to be able to cover a substantial proportion of the gap; the full $4.8bn would have required
over a third of total humanitarian resources in 2013 and this level of spending commitment is
unrealistic. Other sources such as national budgets, household and remittances contributions can
enhance funding, but are not likely to be significant in contexts where resources are stretched due to
crises.21 Overall, the strongest candidate for additional funding appears to be the development sector
in terms of its overall scale and resources; however there are real issues of mandate, architecture and
capacities needed for response that make increasing these allocations in crises countries difficult.
4. Ways forward
4.1 How can global action be advanced? Recommendation 1: A ‘Champions Group’ of high level actors, including representatives of donor countries and crisis-affected states, is formed to advance global action on education in emergencies and protracted crises.
Three primary issues have been identified as part of this paper which restrict the quality of education
provision in emergencies and protracted crises. These include limited implementation of existing
agreements; architectural issues like inadequate capacity for response, lack of coherence across
assessment and planning, and poor data collection and use; and significant funding shortfalls for
education across the spectrum of crises.
To more fully address these challenges, and reinvigorate efforts to address the education needs of the
65 million children affected by crises, this paper calls for establishment of the Oslo Consolidated
Principles for Education in Emergencies and Protracted Crises, bringing together a number of
frameworks that specify existing obligations and approaches.
In addition, there is a call for technical scoping and subsequent launch of a Common Platform for
Education in Emergencies and Protracted Crises, guided by the consolidated principles, which would
support collective action on architectural issues and develop funding mechanism(s) across global,
21 However, there may be scope for greater domestic financing in MICS and non-fragile states affected by crises.
18
regional and country levels. This platform could be shaped in a number of ways, including a
combination of options provided in this paper. On the more intensive end, it might involve the
creation of a new institution, both providing technical assistance on architectural issues and housing
a global fund. Alternatively, this could be part of an existing initiative, including a window of an
existing fund. A less demanding option might be a formalised initiative bringing government,
humanitarian and development actors together for country level coordination, developing an agreed
medium to long-term plan and crowding in existing funding.
Further defining and taking these proposals forward requires high-level commitment and advocacy,
as well as funding. To strengthen global commitment, develop a detailed plan, and work to raise the
necessary resources, a group of high level political actors and institutional leaders should serve as
champions for this issue, working together initially for a minimum of one year to lead this process and
advocate with heads of state, heads of existing institutions, and potential donors.
4.2 Can commitment and accountability be strengthened? Recommendation 2: Consolidated Principles for Education in Emergencies and Protracted Crises, reaffirming agreed commitments, are established and implemented.
The challenge of implementing international frameworks is pervasive. Reviews of existing
commitments point out that official endorsements can help defend principled positions in the face of
pressure from influential actors, there is often a trade off in terms of the energy required to expand
signatories and agreement versus a focus on working toward good practice (Harmer and Ray, 2009;
Abdel-Malek and Koenders, 2011; Scott, 2014). That said, there is a clear sense, both in literature and
through consultation, that commitments and better accountability frameworks make a difference.
While the right to education, including for those affected by emergencies and protracted crises, is
clearly laid out in various UN declarations and conventions, it is all too often not ensured in emergency
and protracted crisis situations. Numerous resolutions, principles and standards further specify
certain obligations and approaches to this challenge, yet despite broad commitment, are not followed
through in practice. The lack of implementation by government, humanitarian, and development
actors limits coordination of the overall response and flows of both human and financial resources.
Concerted action for quality education provision in crisis contexts requires greater awareness and
understanding of these commitments, as well as means to better hold key actors to account.
States are therefore called upon to reaffirm and implement globally agreed principles for education
in emergencies and protracted crises, consolidated here and as a subsidiary to humanitarian principles
and other existing resolutions, standards and guidelines, to provide a unified policy framework for
action and accountability to be used across government, humanitarian and development actors. It is
urged that commitments to education in emergencies and protracted crises, in line with these
Consolidated Principles, be incorporated where possible into national policy and education sector
plans, as well as humanitarian and development policies.
Accountability surrounding these Consolidated Principles is important. A monitoring and evaluation
framework, as part of or aligned with broader efforts such as that developed for the SDGs, should
track and report on progress from the start, including an indication as to what kind of progress is
expected over the coming years and leading up to the completion of the Sustainable Development
Goals in 2030. Any monitoring mechanism should actively involve civil society and researchers.
A proposed draft of the Consolidated Principles can be found in Annex 1.
19
4.3 What would make architecture more coordinated and efficient? Recommendation 3: A Common Platform for Education in Emergencies and Protracted Crises is further scoped and set up to address humanitarian and development architectural issues and ensure more seamless transition of support during and after crises.
There are a number of issues of architecture that block gains in the provision of quality education in
crises. Actual implementation of education in crisis contexts can be constrained by capacity, which
may involve lack of capable partners for delivery exacerbated by short-term funding arrangements.
Lack of coherence across assessments and planning processes within and across the humanitarian vs.
development realms is often an issue, as well as limited use of validated tools and methodologies,
leading to inefficiencies in costing and budgeting for education plans. In addition, gaps in data
collection and information management systems also constrain efforts to analyse evolving needs and
track progress in provision of education in crisis contexts.
Issue 1 Capacity and the number of capable partners – Efforts are needed both to strengthen
ownership of and capacity for education in emergencies issues amongst national governments, as well
as amongst humanitarian and development actors. Actions could involve:
Working together on contingency plans and strategies and integrating education in emergencies issues into preparedness, planning, sector analysis, budgets;
Support existing in-country education systems and staff to re-programme in response to crises, bringing these implementers to the table to be ready to respond and share information;
Diversify education in emergencies responders through building national capacity and funding local organizations through a possible rapid response seed fund;
Set up multi-year funding for the Global Education Cluster and an expanded Rapid Response Team (Coordinators, Information Managers, and Needs Assessment specialists as the core);
Better focus funding on teacher training and ongoing professional development to strengthen education outcomes and build long-term in-country capacity.
Issue 2 Coherence across assessment and planning – There is need for more clearly agreed
mechanisms, tools and approaches to align education assessments, plans and budgets across the full
spectrum of short, medium and longer-term needs and vulnerabilities. Actions could include:
Deployable needs assessment analysts to work across emergency and protracted crises, either via the global Education Cluster Rapid Response Team (RRT), or part of other efforts;
Strengthen awareness of existing needs assessment tools, such as JENA, PDNA and PCNA, and capacity-building in order to use them, especially for Ministries of Education.
Brokering agreement of key stakeholders to undertake joint assessments and planning with support including funds for merging assessments and mapping of plans and budgets;
Advance recovery and transition planning and costing to build in risk reduction and conflict mitigation measures as well as account for inclusion, such as specific disability needs;
Invest in collecting basic cost metrics around key cost centres (infrastructure, teachers’ salaries, and teacher professional development).
Issue 3 Adequate data collection, systems and use – Linked with analysis, better data is an
important element for broader monitoring, evidence building and lessons learning around education
and crises. Actions might involve:
Create links that systematize information-sharing between donors’, NGOs, UN agencies and other stakeholders’ humanitarian and development divisions
Build on humanitarian system investment in data systems, including information management systems for monitoring response with increasing focus on outcomes;
20
Provide technical support to upgrade country systems and capacities, including EMIS.
Develop a common method for costing quality education in education and protracted crises;
Better ensure data can be used to communicate impact results to parents and children.
Bringing greater attention, coherence and efficiency to these architectural issues should form part of
the aims of a Common Platform for Education in Emergencies and Protracted Crises and further be
taken forward through collaboration between different stakeholders at global, regional or even
country level. To achieve this, further appraisal on the shape this should take is needed.
4.4 What can be done about funding shortfalls? Recommendation 4: Urgent attention is given to addressing the finance gap for education in crises, starting with an assessment of options followed by creation of a dedicated fund or new modalities.
The finance gap for education in emergencies and protracted crises, estimated at US$4.8 billion, is of
a significant order of magnitude. Still, it is feasible to begin to make a dent in this, particularly when
one considers the gap equates to only $74 per child. In June 2014, GPE received commitments from
partners totalling $28.5 billion for 2015-18, with donors pledging $2.1 billion (GPE, 2015). In
December 2013, the Global Fund to Fight AIDS, Tuberculosis and Malaria had pledges totalling $12bn
to cover 2014-16 (The Global Fund, 2015) and at the GAVI pledging conference in January 2015, over
$7.5 billion was pledged on top of $2bn in resources already committed for 2016-2020 (GAVI,
2015). Globally, education ODA as a whole reached $12.6bn in 2012 (EFA GMR, 2015a), and would
need to rise by just 38% if international donors alone were going to fill this gap for emergencies and
protracted crises. However, domestic education budgets are also expected to grow in coming years,
and it is reasonable to expect that this burden be shared across actors.
Addressing this global finance gap should be one of the central aims of a Common Platform for
Education in Emergencies and Protracted Crises. There has been broad agreement across discussions
and the consultation on a number of key criteria in terms of how to approach funding. These include
that any new instrument or approach should:
Bridge the divide between the humanitarian and development architectures, avoiding parallel systems and crowding in development finance as well as less traditional sources of funding, for example from foundations, the private sector and emerging donors;
Be both timely, capable of rapidly assessing needs and disbursing funding without bureaucratic delay, as well as being multi-year, catalysing greater predictability of finance;
Support quality educational outcomes going beyond infrastructure support to focus on areas such as teacher training, psychosocial support, protection needs and data needs;
Be based on need, focused on those countries or regions where education provision is beyond the immediate capabilities of national governments.
Expand technical, operational, and financial capacity to deliver educational results;
Other proposed criteria have been more contentious. Significant tension comes, despite clear need
for additional funds, on whether a funding mechanism should aim to raise new funding – seen by some
as unrealistic – or focus on more efficient use of existing monies. Another issue is whether it should
indeed be open across categories of countries and types of emergencies, or be more focused. Finally,
there is no clear sense on whether the scope of any fund should address needs of a certain age group,
i.e. primary aged, or include the full range of learners from early childhood through tertiary education.
21
There are several options that have emerged in how a funding instrument or approach might be
focused, and a multitude of combinations possible of some of the more specific elements. To clarify
the way forward, a full technical assessment of these and other options should be conducted.
Option 1 Rapid Education Response Fund – This type of global fund would address immediate learning needs in the first 12 months following a crisis, supporting a range of short and medium term needs and addressing underlying vulnerability. Eligibility would link to inter-agency appeals, with activity around Strategic Response Plans (SRPs). It would complement humanitarian aid during efforts to develop country specific funding arrangements. Its aim could be to ensure that education support reaches a set percent of humanitarian requests, such as 80% of requests across all crises.
Option 2 Global Education Fund for Protracted Crises + Crisis specific funds – This approach could include both a global fund, as well as specific regional or country level join funds, aiming to provide more predictable funding for education over a period of something like 3-5 years. Countries would become eligible when it becomes clear that the crisis will not resolve itself quickly. Significant refugee or internal displacement may be a factor, and the focus of activity might be on developing long-term durable solutions within the regional education systems accessible to those populations.
Option 3 Fund for Education in Fragile and Crisis-Affected States – This fund would focus on providing longer-term assistance to focus on children who are out of school in conflict-affected fragile states, and would likely need to provide support for a minimum of 5 years in each context. Given aid effectiveness commitments, notably the New Deal on Fragile States, emphasis would be on providing financing directly to governments and interventions on crisis sensitive and resilient education systems.
Option 4 Initiative to Strengthen Response to Education in Crises – This approach would focus on capacity to address coordination and other gaps through existing mechanisms, providing technical support and additional funding. This option would be limited to capacity building to promote a more effective education response in crises, including to strengthen preparedness.
Beyond the purpose and shape of any fund, a number of operational questions also need to be
explored in any appraisal of options. These include:
a) Who should be involved in governance? Governance should be light where possible, and enable quick decision-making. Globally, it would include national governments, multilateral institutions, bilateral donors, and INGOs, with balance across humanitarian and development spheres. At a regional/country level, governance would be comprised of national ministries and members of UN Country Teams, the education cluster, and LEGs.
b) Where would a fund be hosted? Due to its focus on funding and partnership, GPE appears as the most likely option for host, either through a new window in its existing structure or to house any new secretariat. UNICEF is also a possibility, particularly at the country level where it has widespread presence. OCHA has been mentioned, but there may be constraints on it hosting a sector-specific fund.
c) How to determine level of ambition? There has so far been a sense that ambition, at least in terms of funding, should involve some level of compromise between the financing gap and the scope for additional funding. This could further be determined as focus of a fund develops and as a part of the technical appraisal of options, it would need to be refined as costing models are further developed.
d) How would outcomes be measured and communicated? Any fund should have clear aims, which link to measurable outcomes and indicators. A clear, transparent, and regular system for sharing this information is also important.
22
Annex 1: Oslo Consolidated Principles for Education in Emergencies and Protracted Crises Preamble
With deep concern that emergencies and protracted crises deny, disrupt and limit education opportunities for millions of children and youth worldwide, and building on existing collective efforts, we affirm that conflict, natural disasters and other crises will not pose a threat to ensuring that all children and young people in crisis situations are afforded with education opportunities in line with the vision and goals set out in the Incheon Declaration (2015), as well as the new Sustainable Development Goal on education.
Mindful that the right to education, including for those affected by emergencies and protracted crises, is clearly laid out in various UN declarations and conventions, it is recognised that crises all too often deny this right and pose a serious challenge to the fulfilment of international education goals. Quality education provision in crisis contexts requires greater implementation of these obligations. These Consolidated Principles for Education in Emergencies and Protracted Crises underscore an urgency for greater joint action, uniting existing promises into one framework.
Right to education
Reaffirming the right to education, the consolidated principles recall the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, Article 26; the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, articles 13 and 14; the 1951 Convention relating to the Status of Refugees, article 22; the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women, article 10; the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination, articles 5e and 7; the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, article 24; the UN Convention of the Rights of the Child, article 28 and 29.
Existing commitments
Built on humanitarian principles of humanity, neutrality, impartiality and independence as laid out in UN General Assembly (UNGA) resolution 46/182 (1991) and subsequent resolutions, the consolidated principles are further based on UNGA resolution ‘The right to education in emergency situations’ (2010); UN Security Council resolution 1998 on monitoring and reporting attacks on schools and hospitals (2011); the Core Humanitarian Standard on Quality and Accountability (2015); the Sendai Framework for Disaster Risk Reduction (2015); OECD DAC Principles for Good International Engagement in Fragile States (2007) and New Deal for Fragile States (2011); the Paris Declaration on Aid Effectiveness (2005) and the Accra Agenda for Action (2008); and the Principles and Good Practice of Humanitarian Donorship (2003). They draw particularly on INEE’s Minimum Standards for Education: Preparedness, Response, Recovery (2010) which are officially recognized as the education companion guide to the Sphere Humanitarian Charter and Minimum Standards in Humanitarian Response (2011), as well as the INEE Guiding Principles on Conflict Sensitivity (2013).
Taking note that, in operationalizing these principles, it is necessary to meet the specific context of each situation. Conflicts, natural disasters and other crises are dynamic, with needs and capacities differing markedly, as does the political economy of the education sector.
Consolidated principles
Across these sets of declarations, conventions, resolutions, principles and standards there are significant areas of consensus. Through these consolidated principles it is affirmed that:
1. Importance across humanitarian and development contexts
Quality education is essential to fulfilling the right to life with dignity, as laid out in the Humanitarian Charter, and education is recognised as a key part of ensuring sustainable development; this requires reaching all children and youth everywhere including at the earliest possible stage in emergencies and protracted crises.
23
2. National responsibility and mutual accountability
It is the responsibility of national governments that all girls and boys in emergencies and protracted crises complete a full course of free, compulsory primary education and are afforded equal education opportunities at all levels; international assistance and co-operation is needed to support states, particularly in refugee contexts, to ensure this right is fulfilled.
3. Education quality and relevance
Free and compulsory primary education of good quality be made available, accessible and affordable to those affected by crises, with teaching and learning not only on foundational subjects like reading and mathematics, but also life skills and psychosocial support, with teachers as particularly important to delivery; further, quality early years provision helps mitigate against long term effects of crises on children’s development.
4. Equitable provision of education
Education reaches all groups, especially those hardest to reach who may be further marginalized by crisis: this includes internally displaced and refugee children and youth, girls and their gender-specific needs, children and youth with disabilities, those from disadvantaged ethnic or social groups, and those living in extreme poverty.
5. Protection of education
All appropriate measures are taken to fulfill obligations under international law to protect education from attack and ensure schools are safe and secure learning environments; education must also be provided in such a way that it does not exacerbate conflict.
6. Disaster preparedness and resilience
Disaster risk reduction, safety and contingency considerations are factored into education sector plans and curriculum, as well as all phases of planning, design, construction and reconstruction of educational facilities in keeping with efforts to ‘build back better’.
7. Coordination and community participation
Inclusive education coordination groups and structures undertake joint assessment, planning and budgeting in crises, with affected communities actively participating to the extent possible so that response is adapted to local context and need.
8. Alignment with country plans and systems
Humanitarian and development assistance supporting education in crises aligns with existing country education plans and systems, where needed providing durable solutions for displaced and refugee children, and as appropriate strengthening and supplementing capacity for nationally led response.
9. Timely, predictable, and multi-year funding
Funding for education in crises is timely in order to avoid disruption, predictable to ensure greater consistency of response, and multi-year to build system resilience, complementing domestic education budgets and creating incentives for partnerships to leverage further resources and support innovation.
10. Data, statistical systems and research
Adequate, sex-disaggregated data is collected to assess needs and to monitor and evaluate education responses in crises, building on and enhancing national statistical systems in a way that emphasises baseline metrics, measurable learning outcomes, and regular reporting; this is complemented by research to strengthen analysis and learning.
24
References
Abdel-Malek, T. and Koenders, B. (2011) “Progress towards more effective aid: What does the evidence show?”. 4th high
Level Forum on Aid Effectiveness, 29 November – 1 December, 2011, Busan.
Bennett, C. (2015) “The development agency of the future: Fit for protracted crises?” Working Paper. London: Overseas
Development Institute
DFID (2015) “Delivering quality education in protracted crises: A discussion paper” Discussion Paper. London: Department
for International Development
EFA GMR, (2013) Children still battling to go to school. Policy Paper 10, July. Paris: UNESCO.
EFA GMR, (2014) Around 250 million children of primary school-age are not reaching a minimum learning standard, Paris:
UNESCO.
EFA GMR, (2015) Pricing the right to education: The cost of reaching new targets by 2030. Policy Paper 18, Paris: UNESCO.
GAVI, (2015) Reach Every Child: Gavi Pledging Conference 2016-2020, Berlin, January 27, 2015, Chair’s Summary. Geneva:
GAVI.
Global Coalition to Protect Education from Attack, (2014) Education under attack: 2014, New York: Global Coalition to
Protect Education from Attack.
Global Education Cluster (2011) “Education Cluster Strategic Plan 2011-2013 – Final Version” GPE (2012) Local Education Groups: Keystone to Success - Board Meeting. Berlin, 2012” Board Meeting Presentation.
Online: http://www.globalpartnership.org/content/local-education-groups-keystone-success
Global Partnership for Education (2013) “Results for Learning Report 2013.” Washington, D.C.: Global Partnership for
Education
GPE, (2015a) A Platform for Education in Crisis and Conflict: A GPE Issues Paper , Washington D.C.: GPE.
GPE, (2015b) GPE - Funding. [Online] Available at http://www.globalpartnership.org/funding [Accessed 10 June 2015].
Harmer, A and Ray, D. B. (2009) “Study on the relevance and applicability of the Paris Declaration on Aid Effectiveness in
Humanitarian Assistance”. London: HPG, ODI.
Heidelberg Institute for International Conflict Research, (2015) Conflict Barometer 2014, Heidelberg: Heidelberg Institute
for International Conflict Research.
High Level Panel, (2013) A New Global Partnership: Eradicate Poverty and Transform Economies through Sustainable
Development, New York: UN.
IASC, (2010) Response to the humanitarian crisis in Haiti: Following the 12 January 2010 earthquake, Geneva: IASC.
IFRC, (2015) Types of disasters: Definition of hazard. [Online] Available at: https://www.ifrc.org/en/what-we-do/disaster-
management/about-disasters/definition-of-hazard/ [Accessed 8 May 2015].
INEE, (2010) Minimum Standards for Education: Preparedness, Response, Recovery, New York, USA: INEE.
INEE, (2015a) EiE Crisis Spotlight: Ebola - West Africa. [Online] Available at: http://www.ineesite.org/en/crisis-
spotlights/ebola-west-africa [Accessed 6 May 2015].
INEE, (2015b) EiE Crisis Spotlight: South Sudan. [Online] Available at: http://www.ineesite.org/en/crisis-spotlights/south-sudan [Accessed 08 June 2015].
Jalbout, M. (2015) Reaching all children with education in Lebanon: Opportunities for action [Online] Available at
http://b.3cdn.net/awas/425e9dbef2c7ca9980_tom6bga7x.pdf [Accessed on 10 June 2015].
Jones, A. & Naylor, R., (2014) The quantitative impact of armed conflict on education: counting the human and financial
costs, Reading, United Kingdom: CfBT Education Trust.
King, E. M. & Winthrop, R., (2015) Revisiting the gender gaps in education: Today’s challenges for girls’ education,
Washington D.C.: Brookings Institution Center for Universal Education (forthcoming)
Linksbridge (2015) Education in Crises: Estimating Cost and Demand. Seattle: Linksbridge.
Muñoz, V., (2008) Promotion and protection of all human rights, civil, political, economic, social and cultural rights,
including the right to development: Right to education in emergencies: Report of the Special Rapporteur on the right to
education, Vernor Muñoz, New York: UN General Assembly.
Nicolai, S. & Hine, S., (2015) Investment for education in emergencies: A review of the evidence, London: ODI.
NRC and Save the Children (2015) “Walk the Talk: Review of Donors’ Humanitarian Policies on Education”. Oslo: Avenir
Analytics, commissioned by Norwegian Refugee Council and Save the Children.
Save the Children (2010) The Future is Now: Education for Children in Countries Affected by Conflict, London: Save the
Children.
Save the Children (2015) The Cost of War: Calculating the impact of the collapse of Syria’s education system on Syria’s
future, London: Save the Children.
Scott, R (2014) “Imagining More Effective Humanitarian Aid: A Donor Perspective”. OECD Development Co-operation
Working Paper 18. Paris: OECD.
Shields, R. & Paulson, J., (2015) Development in Reverse’? A Longitudinal Analysis of Armed Conflict, Fragility and School
Enrolment. Comparative Education, 51(2), pp. 212-230.
25
Steer, L. (2015) “Financing Education: Opportunities for Global Action” Presentation. Part of a consultation on an upcoming
Brookings research report: Steer, L. with K. Smith (2015). “Financing Education: Opportunities for Global Action”.
Brookings Institution (forthcoming)
The Global Fund, (2015) Fourth Replenishment. [Online]. Available at
http://www.theglobalfund.org/en/replenishment/fourth/ [Accessed 10 June 2015].
The Government Office for Science, (2012) Reducing Risks of Future Disasters: Priorities for Decision Makers: Final Project
Report, London: The Government Office for Science.
The Sphere Project (2011) “Humanitarian Charter and Minimum Standards in Humanitarian Response” Geneva: The Sphere Project
UIS, (2015) Fixing the broken promise of education for all: Findings from the Global Initiative on Out-of-School Children,
Paris: UNESCO Institute for Statistics.
UN General Assembly, (2010) The right to education in emergency situations , New York: UNGA.
UNESCO (2000) “The Dakar Framework for Action - Education for All: Meeting our Collective Commitments” Paris: UNESCO.
UNESCO, (2007) Education for All Global Monitoring Report: Strong foundations: Early childhood care and education, Paris:
UNESCO.
UNESCO (2011) “The hidden crisis: Armed conflict and education” EFA Global Monitoring Report. Paris: UNESCO.
UNESCO (2015a) “Education for All 2000-2015: Achievements and challenge” EFA Global Monitoring Report. Paris:
UNESCO.
UNESCO, (2015b) World Education Forum 2015. [Online] Available at: https://en.unesco.org/world-education-forum-
2015/day-1/education-2030-roadmap-19-may [Accessed 15 June 2015].
UNESCO Institute for Statistics, (2010) The quantitative impact of conflict on education, Paris: UNESCO.
UNESCO-BREDA (2012) “Household Education Spending – An Analytical and Comparative Perspective for 15 Countries”
Report. Dakar, Senegal: UNESCO-BREDA
UNHCR (2011) “Refugee Education – A global review” Geneva: UNHCR - Policy Development and Evaluation Service
UNHCR (2012) 2012-2016 Education Strategy. Geneva: UNHCR
UNHCR (2013) “Note on the Mandate of the High Commissioner for Refugees and His Office” Online:
http://www.unhcr.org/526a22cb6.html
UNHCR, (2014) “War’s Human Cost – Global Trends 2013” Geneva: UNHCR UNHCR, (2015) “World at War – Global Trends Forced Displacement in 2014” Geneva: UNHCR UNICEF, (2006) Education in Emergencies: A Resource Tool Kit, Kathmandu: UNICEF Regional Office for South Asia.
UNICEF (2014) “Syria Crisis Monthly humanitarian situation report” Online: http://www.humanitarianresponse.info/fr/system/files/documents/files/unicef_syria_monthly_humanitarian_situation_report_140815.pdf
UNICEF, (2015) A Global Fund for Education in Emergencies: Problem, scope and parameters. s.l.:UNICEF.
UNICEF, (2015) Education in Emergencies and Post-Crisis Transition. [Online] Available at:
http://www.unicef.org/education/bege_61685.html [Accessed 3 May 2015].
UNICEF, (2015) Nepal Earthquake: New appeal for children amid growing need - UNICEF. [Online] Available at:
http://www.unicef.org/infobycountry/media_81729.html [Accessed 08 June 2015].
United Nations (2012) “Global Education First Initiative: An Initiative of the United Nations Secretary-General” New York: United Nations Online: http://www.globaleducationfirst.org/files/GEFI_Brochure_ENG.pdf
United Nations General Assembly (2010) “The right to education in emergency situations” Agenda Item 114, Sixty-fourth session. New York: United Nations
UNISDR and Global Alliance for Disaster Risk Reduction & Resilience in the Education Sector (2014) “Comprehensive School
Safety” Paper prepared for the 3rd UN World Conference on Disaster Risk Reduction, 2015
Winthrop, R. and Matsui, E. (2013) “A New Agenda for Education in Fragile States” Report. Center for Universal Education
at Brookings
#EduSummitOslo